Search

Background A 'blended' (e-learning and facilitated workshops) training course for Group C staff (i.e. staff with relatively infrequent contact with end of life care) has been delivered across several English counties with the aim of improving end of life care in nursing and residential care homes. This paper evaluates the impact of the course on participants' understandings of and confidence in delivering end of life care in one nursing home, while also considering barriers to change in practice. Methods A mixed-methods case study approach, incorporating pre- and post-course questionnaires (SHA East of England End of Life Care Education Programme 'ABC' Project Work Force C or Non Nurse Workforce B Pre and Post Course Questionnaire; E-Learning in End of Life Care Study Pre and Post Course Questionnaire), documentary analysis, semi-structured interviews, and observation of course workshops. Participants were 20 members of staff at a nursing home in a city in the East of England, including 14 Health Care Assistants (carers) and 6 others (administrative, activities, hosting, and catering staff). The questionnaires and interviews assessed understandings of and confidence towards end of life care delivery. Results Improvements in participants' confidence in delivering end of life care were observed, particularly in the core competency areas of symptom management, communication, and advance care planning. A shift towards more detailed and more holistic understandings of end of life care was in evidence; some participants also championed end of life care in the home as a result of the course. Several barriers to changes in practice were encountered, including uneven participation, the absence of mechanisms for disseminating new insights and knowledge within the home, and a widespread perception that nurses' professional dominance in the home made sustainable change difficult to enact. Conclusions While blended e-learning courses have the potential to generate positive change in participants' understandings of and confidence about End of Life Care, organizational and inter-professional obstacles must be overcome in order to translate these changes into improved end of life care delivery in nursing (and residential) homes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Breathlessness is the most common and intrusive symptom of advanced non-malignant respiratory and cardiac conditions. The Breathlessness Intervention Service (BIS) is a multi-disciplinary complex intervention, theoretically underpinned by a palliative care approach, utilising evidence-based non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions to support patients with advanced disease in managing their breathlessness. Having published the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of BIS for patients with advanced cancer and their carers, we sought to establish its effectiveness, and cost effectiveness, in advanced non-malignant conditions.Methods: This was a single-centre Phase III fast-track single-blind mixed method RCT of BIS versus standard care for breathless patients with non-malignant conditions and their carers. Randomisation was to one of two groups (randomly permuted blocks). Eighty-seven patients referred to BIS were randomised (intervention arm n = 44; control arm n = 43 received BIS after four-week wait); 79 (91 %) completed to key outcome measurement. The primary outcome measure was 0-10 numeric rating scale for patient distress due to breathlessness at four weeks. Secondary outcome measures were Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Client Service Receipt Inventory, EQ-5D and topic-guided interviews.Results: Qualitative analyses showed the positive impact of BIS on patients with non-malignant conditions and their carers; quantitative analyses showed a non-significant greater reduction in the primary outcome ('distress due to breathlessness'), when compared to standard care, of -0.24 (95 % CI: -1.30, 0.82). BIS resulted in extra mean costs of £799, reducing to £100 when outliers were excluded; neither difference was statistically significant. The quantitative findings contrasted with those previously reported for patients with cancer and their carers, which showed BIS to be both clinically and cost effective. For patients with non-malignant conditions there was a notable trend of improvement over both trial arms to the key measurement point; participants may have experienced a therapeutic effect from the research interviews, diluting the intervention's impact.Conclusions: BIS had a statistically non-significant effect for patients with non-malignant conditions, and slightly increased service costs, but had a qualitatively positive impact consistent with findings for advanced cancer. Trials of palliative care interventions should consider multiple, mixed method, primary outcomes and ensure that protocols limit potential contaminating therapeutic effects in study designs.Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04119516 (December 2008); ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00678405 (May 2008). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]